Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

I find it dangerous to be doing this assumptions. After all, artefacts are passed down by generations, even harpoons. So if I lost my military compass in a boat that I inherited from my father, and that must be now around 60 years old, and a whale eats it, the whale would be given an age of 60 years old?

There are hunters who have rifles that are old(100+ years), and those rifles are in working condition. Suppose they go out right now and shoot a deer, and the deer runs off and survives for a while. Later it is found by a park ranger, and they investigate the - now old - bullet wound. Does it mean the deer is over 100 years old simply because the bullet in its body was patented over 100 years ago? (The answer is no, by the way).

Except the hunters using a 100 year old rifle would still be using modern ammunition, as antique ammunition is quite collectible and loses a lot of it's value when removed from original packaging-not to mention it is much safer, as you really don't want to shoot ammunition that old. What they would see is that the deer was shot with a rifle using a type of round that could be considered antique (100+ years covers everything from a.30-06 1904 Springfield-a "modern" round- to the.30-40 Krag rifle I used to own-which preceded the 1904 Springfield and is considered an "obsolete" caliber round- to my family's Civil War era Lorenz rifle-a clearly "antique round": you can purchase newly made ammunition for all of these weapons) but made from modern materials. As an antique gun owner, your argument is kind of ridiculous.

Because there's no way the WWI munitions escaped WWI, right? And there's definitely no way that someone could, I don't know...create a bullet for an antique gun that has been passed down in their family, right? Because *no one* with an antique gun has any desire to shoot it.

A bullet created now for an antique gun would have different properties than a contemporarily created bullet and would easily be distinguished from an original bullet. And only an idiot would fire authentically made WWI ammunition because it is unsafe as the quality is unknown and it could have corroded or otherwise rendered itself unsafe and is likely to be worth far more than modern-made ammunition of the same caliber would cost. The only time an antique gun would fire original, contemporary ammunition

Don't worry, it's okay to enslave, break, torture, and slaughter creatures capable of feeling pain and suffering - as long as they're not from the same species as you.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com... [topdocumentaryfilms.com]

In most cases, at least here in Canada, marine animals that are in captivity have usually been discovered to be injured, and either would have died if left to their own devices, or worse, spent the rest of their lives suffering. Full rehabilitation takes time, and of course, after being in captivity for any extended period, releasing the creature would also unfortunately be a certain death sentence... so in some ways, it might seem like they are damned if we do take them in, and damned if we don't.

The research that we get from animals in captivity is usually useless, frankly. It's like trying to understand human behaviour by going to a jail. Even insects and fish are affected by this; I keep species of snails in my tank that have never been bred in captivity.

All you can learn from animals in captivity is how they behave in captivity.

I understand that the handlers and the scientists TRY. They really do. But more often than not, they also quit and move on because they can't handle the conditions the an

You know, the ones where he and a bunch of other famous people apparently "traveled back in time"? Unless they have more than a saddle patch to go on (a distinctive harpoon mark or tail gash), this could just be a look-a-like for the Orca from 103 years ago, just like the Nicholas Cage look-a-like.

The saddle patch is accepted by the scientists in the field to be a unique identifier. No two whales have ever been found to have identical saddle patches, and there is enough variation to indicate they are unique. So is it possible? yes. Likely? No.

Add to this the fact that the data from these old photos lines up with her offspring history, and it's a pretty solid case. In 1971, she was photographed with a male offspring who was already fully grown, so at least 20 years old. She was not seen with any

As someone who used to work with research mice A LOT, I can tell you that captive mice (yes, the normal "wild-type" mice) are considered very old after 18 months, but in the wild they live around 4 years. My theory is that the real wild-type mice, ie the ones out in the field, get lots of excercise and have reduced caloric intake. The captive research mice have all the food and water they could ever want 24/7 and live in tiny boxes with no exercise wheel. Yes, the captive mice don't get diabetes or atherosclerosis, but they're still not living as long...

I'm starting to think the only useful things a human can learn about wildlife in captivity is that it is no longer wild, nor alive, and we're despicable creatures for constraining other living beings for the rest of their, now-shortened, lives.

But, hey, at least some 'scientific' proof of how much we're being a bunch of dumbasses. This is the one field where I would expect serious scientists to shut down everything if they have proof they're doing more harm than good.

This is the one field where I would expect serious scientists to shut down everything if they have proof they're doing more harm than good.

Not likely. Even if they were serious scientists, they're still working within the confines of an amusement park. They have bean counters to answer to, and to them the "science" derived from keeping the animals is a slight PR bonus, not their reason to exist.

I don't think it's the confinement. Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild.

I think it's the water quality. Dog poop and urine don't mix with the air, they don't breathe it in. Marine animals on the other hand, DO breathe their own feces. Which is why it's essential to have a large volume of water per animal, as happens in nature.

I have guppy fish in a 30 gallon tank. They almost never live past 2 years

The water in these tanks is not only filtered, but runs through protein skimmers and usually UV sterilization, too. The amount of feces (and urine) the animals are drinking or otherwise absorbing is small. Nitrates are A Bad Thing to most marine life.

I don't think it's the confinement. Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild.

I think it's the water quality. Dog poop and urine don't mix with the air, they don't breathe it in. Marine animals on the other hand, DO breathe their own feces. Which is why it's essential to have a large volume of water per animal, as happens in nature.

I have guppy fish in a 30 gallon tank. They almost never live past 2 years in captivity. In nature however, guppies live 5 years or more.

I've been thinking of doing an experiment for quite a while. Take two groups of guppies, one in a common aquarium environment, say 10 guppies in a 10 gallon tank (1 inch of fish per gallon). The other group would live in a far less dense tank, maybe 5 guppies in a 200 gallon tank. (5 would be the minimum number since guppies are communal fish and they don't do well mentally unless they're in a group). And compare the fish lifespan in the the 2 groups.

Dogs have co-evolved with humans for hundreds of years. We'd expect them to be fairly well adapted though they can still get some serious psychological issues.

Cats haven't been around as long, but cats are generally solitary to begin with so might do better with isolation.

Orca are highly social, perhaps moreso than humans. And an aquarium can hardly compare to the ocean in sensory complexity. It's basically like sticking a human in solitary confinement, it's inhumane and they tend to go crazy.

I love the idea of going to an aquarium and seeing Orca swimming around. But I can't imagine a way of doing so that doesn't essentially amount to torturing the poor animals, Seaworld and the like should absolutely be shut down.

It only takes about 30 generations of selective breeding to completely domesticate a wild canine. So hundreds of years of "co-evolution" is more than enough. It's not the amount of time, it's the population diversity and the selection pressure.

Evolution is not instant soup. You don't just "add time" as if you were adding water.

Being intelligent does not have any correlation to being able to be confined. Great white sharks, for example, cannot be kept in captivity. At all. They die after a couple of weeks, at best, generally. The world record is 44 days.

Don't be an asshole. The OP is right. Of course there are varying kinds of intelligence, but Orcas are near relations to dolphins, and both show higher intelligence than wolves or dogs in pretty much any measure.

There are numerous examples of highly advanced behaviours in Orcas, e.g. hunting strategies that require significant forward planning and close co-operation to pull off. E.g. washing seals off ice floes by swimming in tight formation to create a large bow wave. They also have complex social structures and behaviours, as with other dolphins and most whales generally. Mothers have been seen to teach calves hunting skills, e.g. pods that beach-hunt mothers have been seen "instructing" calves on how to do it, even pushing them toward the beach. This is clear evidence of culture - a very high-order behaviour. There is also strong evidence that Orcas have languages, differing significantly between different groupings.

In "Blackfish" it was reported that a pod of Orcas, that had had calves taken before, adopted a strategy to try foil the hunters. They split up with one group of adults swimming down one sound, breaching regularly to attract the attention of the hunters and divert them; while another group of mothers swam quietly with the calves down another sound (unfortunately, the hunters had a spotter aircraft). That story, if true, shows incredibly advanced planning, problem solving and organisational abilities.

You could go on and on. There is, to my understanding, *ample* evidence that these are *highly* intelligent animals, and are used to living very social and inter-dependent lives. On the latter social aspect, their needs potentially may even be much greater than ours.

I know what you are getting at, and please don't mistake me for a troll, but they are not *highly* intelligent. You could call them *relatively* intelligent, compared to other animals, but you make one statement that completely eclipses any measure of intelligence possessed by Orca "(unfortunately, the hunters had a spotter aircraft)" When compared to humans, all other animals are a thick as bricks.

That doesn't mean we should treat them like shit, though. I don't condone how many animals are treated, but I

No, I think that planning and collaborating count as 'highly intelligent'. Human children are bad at nearly all the things that were mentioned (long term planning, teaching, general communication, etc.)

Our inability to measure animal intelligence by our human-centric values doesn't indicate that they're not intelligent, it indicates that we know less than we think about how to quantify that sort of thing. By nearly every measure, those orcas would find us USELESS in the water. Orca scientists would lament o

While I question my own personal ability to thin effectively in 3 dimensions, I'm going to go with "well I've never been put to the test on it". I'm going to make a broad assumption that your average air force pilot would have little difficulty with such challenges an Orca might pose him/her. And yes, a small child will not be able to do many of the things these Orca are capable of, but the same may be said of young Orca. My point is that even in an under developed state, there are many ways in which a smal

True enough; intelligence is certainly not a specific measure of worth. The only reason it's worth bringing up in this case is because something that's smart understands how bad the situation is. I don't like it when bees die (and frankly, the issue of bee intelligence isn't solved either; they've got quite the vocabulary, and there's evidence of voting and democracy in hives), but I think on an individual level, they're likely unable to comprehend their situation. But I can't really prove that.:)

Thank you for comment with some impressive nitpicking that "highly intelligent" should be "relatively intelligent". Also very impressive how you make an argument in your comment that these animals barely rank alongside human children, and back it up with an example of how these animals *outperform* children.

BTW, did you know that Chimpanzees can perform basic arithmetic much *faster* than pretty much *any* human, child or adult? Does that mean we barely measure up to chimpanzees?

You are possibly right, I'll take you on your word, given how you don't cite a source, but my underlying point, is that it's all beside the point. We shouldn't be thinking "these are intelligent creatures, we shouldn't be keeping them in captivity for our enjoyment" and instead, "we really shouldn't be keeping ANY potentially endangered creatures in captivity, who are doing fine in the wild".

I'm all for domesticated animals being reared in captivity for food, where they are provided for and generally lead u

My ability to predict the motions of a school of fish, perhaps, but a marine biologist, less so. A marine biologist with GPS trackers attached to several fish and satellite imagery or sonar and now doesn't the Orca look stupid.

Now one person can track and predict the motions of not just one school of fish, but potentially many many schools all across the oceans/world so that I don't have to. This leaves me to worry about writing technical manuals for production operators making the sterile injectable cancer

Here is a Youtube video [youtube.com] of orcas not only using sophisticated behavior to knock a crab eater seal off an iceflow, but also repeating the procedure over and over, in what appears to be a training session for juvenile orcas.

Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild.

Dogs get taken out for walkies at least once per day, or they start to go crazy and become unhealthy. Captive orcas never have the equivalent. It's the equivalent of a dog getting all it's exercise by walking round and round the coffee table. I wouldn't expect such a dog to have the same lifespan as a dog that's been out for walks.

Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild.

Dogs get taken out for walkies at least once per day, or they start to go crazy and become unhealthy. Captive orcas never have the equivalent. It's the equivalent of a dog getting all it's exercise by walking round and round the coffee table. I wouldn't expect such a dog to have the same lifespan as a dog that's been out for walks.

Along those lines, if I let my dog off leash to run in the woods for a while, she comes back to me at the end of the day. I assume that means that she is happier to live with me than to live alone in the woods.

Why not let the captive orca's have a free swim every week or so and see if they come back?

I don't think it's the confinement. Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild.

Wolves have a shorter life expectancy due to humans.When taking being shot, trapped, poisoned, run over and other direct or indirect human causes of death out of the equation, a typical wolf's lifespan is 13-20 years, which is slightly longer than most domestic dogs' lifespans.

Also note that dog lifespans have gone down since WWII. It's difficult to prove the exact cause, but the change to dry dog food and dogs spending less time outdoors are two of the suspects.

I have guppy fish in a 30 gallon tank. They almost never live past 2 years in captivity. In nature however, guppies live 5 years or more.

I would say that speaks more to your skill about taking care of fish then anything else. If I omit fry my fish live usually past the upper end of the age limit.

The sea world tank in San Diego is 7 million gallons and has 10 wales, that's approximately 100,000 ft^3 per whale. Further the filtration on the tank runs 30,000 gallons per minute it takes approximately 3 hours to filter 7 million gallons. Water cleanliness is not the issue, the whales and dolphins are stressed from from loud noises of children and not being able to travel, they are fed obscene amounts of antacids to try to minimize the stomach ulcers.

Not just a filtration system but frequent water changes as well. Fish waste and uneaten food become ammonia the ammonia is turned into nitrites by bacteria then the nitrites are turned into nitrates by another bacteria, these nitrates are not as toxic as ammonia or nitrites but a at 40ppm fish are defiantly stressed.

"I don't think it's the confinement. Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild."

Through the process of artificial selection, dogs evolved into creatures that could tolerate dog houses. Could you say the same thing for the individual whales that were captured and confined. Maybe after a few hundred generations, we could breed domesticated whales that can wear collars and bark. But for now it's torture keep

I think it's the water quality. Dog poop and urine don't mix with the air, they don't breathe it in. Marine animals on the other hand, DO breathe their own feces. Which is why it's essential to have a large volume of water per animal, as happens in nature.

First off, Marine MAMMALS don't breath water. They come to the surface to breath.Secondly, if it was primarily water quality then aquariums that are located next to the ocean and are constantly gettingfresh water from the ocean should see significantly different life expectancies than ones inland which must filter theirown water.

I've been thinking of doing an experiment for quite a while. Take two groups of guppies, one in a common aquarium environment, say 10 guppies in a 10 gallon tank (1 inch of fish per gallon). The other group would live in a far less dense tank, maybe 5 guppies in a 200 gallon tank. (5 would be the minimum number since guppies are communal fish and they don't do well mentally unless they're in a group). And compare the fish lifespan in the the 2 groups.

A more accurate experiment would be to have two identical tanks with the exact same number of fish but have one tank have a hidden sump tank.Here is an example of one: http://splu [wordpress.com]

I have guppy fish in a 30 gallon tank. They almost never live past 2 years in captivity. In nature however, guppies live 5 years or more.

And have you reconsidered if you should actually be keeping guppies, since it's obviously so harmful to them? Should you be continuing to replace them as they die (whether it be by purchase, or by not separating out the sexes and letting your population die out)?

Let's put that in a better known pet context. Say that you have been keeping dogs for years, and that dogs live

Dogs aren't wolves. A wolf will kill you if it thinks it can and it's hungry. Very few dogs are dangerous. Further, dogs kept in tiny cages and never allowed to leave probably wouldn't actually live longer than their wild counterparts, though I'm speculating.

Nonetheless, I agree with your point that confinement is probably much more damaging to a water breathing animal than it is to an air breathing animal.

I agree, but unfortunately we live in this universe, and not that alternative one where everything is as it should be.

If people can't go somewhere (not too far away) and see animals, they will soon think CGI-versions of these creatures are good enough, which leads to extinction for the real ones. Unless they are really cute.

You say that keeping a whale in captivity for education and entertainment is wrong, because it dies sooner than in the wild (which btw is not proven by this single grandmother killer whale). But I am just curious: the beef and pork you eat is also 'grown' in cages. We over eat purely for entertainment (you cannot convince me we need a 400g steak, that is entertainment), and since kids have to learn how to prepare food, it will be used for education too. So how is that different?

because it dies sooner than in the wild (which btw is not proven by this single grandmother killer whale).

Existing scientific observations of Orcas in the wild give their average lifespan as 60 to 70 years. Vs about 20 in captivity. It's not even close.

And to add insult to injury, the staff as SeaWorld are trained to lie about this: they claim the average expectancy in the wild is about 20 years. (ref: the documentary Blackfish has video evidence of this.)

But I am just curious: the beef and pork you eat is also 'grown' in cages.

As I'm sure your mother told you, two wrongs don't make a right. Generally people make a distinction between captive wild animals, and domesticated animals bred as livestock. Whether that is a justifiable distinction is a mater of personal morality.

I do not think there is a problem with Sea World.

Then you should seek out Blackfish and watch it.

Of course I agree that out abuse of the natural environment and the animals in it is a huge problem. But that doesn't let SeaWorld off the hook.

The staff are probably just trained to repeat SeaWorld's official stance on Orca lifespan, outlined here: http://seaworld.com/en/truth/k... [seaworld.com]
Sounds like they'll need to update their figures now that this granny's been found.
Follow the menus to read the rest of the "care" / Blackfish rebuttal section of their web site and decide for yourself.

You say that keeping a whale in captivity for education and entertainment is wrong, because it dies sooner than in the wild (which btw is not proven by this single grandmother killer whale). But I am just curious: the beef and pork you eat is also 'grown' in cages. We over eat purely for entertainment (you cannot convince me we need a 400g steak, that is entertainment), and since kids have to learn how to prepare food, it will be used for education too. So how is that different?

GP never stated that he or she eat meat.You are making an assumption on an individual based on how the majority is.

True. I should not have made it personal.Regardless, I still think that since Sea World is a relatively insignificant issue (in the big picture), it receives way too much attention. It would be better if those who criticise it focus their anger on a larger issue than this.

An animal which travels over 100 miles in a day in the wild is confined to an area slightly larger than itself. Put a human in a cage with a few inches of room between skin and cage wall. See how long it lives

That's done all the time. And then they're let out an hour a day or so to walk around a slightly larger space (like the Orca's get to a bigger pool to perform tricks), and get some exercise.

This is what's called "prisons". Humans generally don't seem to like it, but they also don't live that much shorter inside a prison than outside (it's suggested that it cuts lifetime to about a quarter of natural lifetime, which for humans would mean most prisoners should be dead within 20 years behind bars).

Amen. I've been to Sea World (regrettably) and it made me want to puke. These majestic animals trapped in small pools being forced to flap about while thumping techno music plays and a sleazy DJ whoops the simpletons in the crowd into a frenzy because "omg, I'm getting wet!"

We put humans in smallish cages all the time (not exactly inches between skin and wall). Some for the rest of their natural lives. It seems that the biggest factor in shortening their life spans is the other humans in the other cages that they interact with.

I'm not saying Sea World should be caging whales, but I'm saying its gonna be hard to get people to stop doing something that they do to each other. They'll just come up with some whale crimes to charge them with before locking them up.

> Dolphins "cute and playful"? Yeah, maybe when they've been subjugated by their human captors.

No. They seem to behave in the wild that way too.

They are much like their Orca cousins in this respect.

Humpbacks are big showoffs too.

This is all stuff you could see for yourself if you actually bothered to interact with these creatures on their own terms in their own environment. Or you could have simply Googled this stuff. These aren't exactly state secrets we're talking about here.

I'm taking my wife on vacation to a resort. She has always wanted to swim with dolphins, and given the recent hate mongering about captive cetaceans I anticipate it the opportunity will be lost forever in the US within 15 years. It's unfortunate our kids won't have the same opportunities.

Oh, boo-hoo. Take a boat offshore, bob around in the water for a bit and if any dolphins want to swim with you, they can. There are plenty of places where they do.

Taking this campaign to its logical conclusion, they will probably eventually call for a closure of all zoos.

There are more reasons to run a zoo [wikipedia.org] than simply to entertain the gawking masses.

Oh, and god forbid you go see animals on safari. That's exploitation as well.

Who says that?

Your tasty snack is based on the suffering of dairy cows, who live for only a few short years before they are brutally killed and ground into burger. How can you live with yourself?

While still holding the view that cetaceans shouldn't be kept in captivity for little more than entertainment purposes? Pretty well, actually.

Your basic cow has been domesticated for centuries. Living on a farm in a herd and getting turned into burgers is what a cow is these days. It's not like they're highly intelligent or highly social animals. Release a cow into the wild, and it wouldn't have the capacity to understand that it was anywhere other than on a bigger farm.

I'm taking my wife on vacation to a resort. She has always wanted to swim with dolphins, and given the recent hate mongering about captive cetaceans I anticipate it the opportunity will be lost forever in the US within 15 years. So, we definitely made this a must-do activity on this trip. It's unfortunate our kids won't have the same opportunities.

Be careful what you wish for. I'm guessing that you haven't seen one of the many videos of dolphins aggressively trying to have sex with humans? Some people even call it dolphin rape.Here's one of those videos (for real, not a rickroll): https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (also look at the other related videos on that page of similar dolphin activities. I, for one, would not want to take my wife or any kids to swim with them.

Whale watchers have carefully vetted systems to look for unique markings. In humpback whales, it is the underside of the flukes. If I get a decent picture of the ventral flukes on a local whale, I email to our local whale watching experts (with GPS coordinates). On grey whales it is the left side of the dorsal fluke and upper back for some odd reason.

While nobody has actually proven the markings are unique, they seem to work pretty well for long term population studies. Easier than flipper prints.

Well, if you RTFA they mention that she has another identifier: a notch on her dorsal fin. Even if the saddle patch was not unique - and I'm better prepared to take the word of the experienced whale spotting captain on this than the skepticism of random internet guy - it seems very unlikely that another orca would have both identical markings and an identical notch in her dorsal fin.

No advancing of marine mammal knowledge happens in these theme parks, apart from discovering that each and every time the animals in question have poorer health (physical & mental), and die sooner.

And yes, of course many die in the wild, but by your reasoning we should keep everyone in captivity, as people die in the wild - doesn't that seem rather bizarre logic?

Seaworld exists to make money. That's it. Their scientific endeavours are of severely limited importance to the field, and while their animal rescuing attempts are honourable, they are rather hypocritical in the face of their own record regarding the treatment of their own animals.

Just like Zoos, Seaworld does a LOT for education. Seaworld and most reputable zoos also funnel a tremendous amount of money into conservation efforts.

people who would otherwise not even know whales exist (its just something in a book, something they might see...someday...maybe) get to see them up close. to learn about them. to learn about the problems they face in the wild. to learn about what human pressure on the environment is doing to them. no, seaworld isnt ideal for the individuals kept there, much l

Unfortunately, Seaworld's version of an orca enclosure is the equivalent of the zoos and circuses of the PT Barnum era. For comparison, the Monterey Bay aquarium has a bigger tank for its shark/turtle/tuna and other large fish exhibit.

Yes, you get to see the animal. Yes, you get to see it do stupid tricks. But that's the only value it has for you, and the only value it has for the animal is that it isn't immediately killed off.

Really, I think what you want are marine parks rather than zoos. It's really just not feasible to give these animals enough space to move inside the boundaries of a land-based park. It's insane, really, if you contemplate it. This is a creature that's intelligent and migrates thousands of kilometres a year. Even if you remove the migration component, the amount of space you need to not drive it insane is unbelievable. They're animals that need to be in motion. We just can't provide it to them.

Maybe if we can't afford to treat the animals properly, we don't deserve to see them.

As we've all hashed it over several times in this story, keeping the animals in a tank that small is basically torture and significantly reduces their lifespan. There's no way to do it properly. We're killing them, and I'm sorry for the kids that don't get to see the animals, but let's be real here: if you've got enough money to travel to San Diego and pay the fee into SeaWorld, you probably have the scratch to go down to t